VARANDARAPALLY PANCHAYAT Vs. COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question to be decided in the Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant is whether the plaintiff a public limited company registered under the Companies Act is liable to pay profession tax under S.56 of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act read with R.123 and 125 of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat Rules, 1951.

(2.) BOTH the courts below took the view that during the relevant years the plaintiff was not transacting any business within the Panchayat area and is therefore not liable for assessment to professional tax. The submission of the learned counsel for the defendant was that the findings of the courts below cannot be sustained under S.56 of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act and R.123 and 125 of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat R.1951. S. 56 reads thus: "Any Panchayat,

(3.) THE courts below have not given due weight to the scope of R.125. Even in the plaint, it is admitted by the plaintiff that the company owns a rubber estate within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat. dw. 2 who is the Manager of the plaintiff company, deposed that the company is having an estate office in the estate within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat. According to dw. 2 there are two Assistant Managers and five members in the clerical staff in the office. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the members working in the office are only attending to the collection of latex from the estate, which is sent to Pierce Leslie and Co., Cochin and this will not amount to 'transacting business' for the purpose of assessment under R.123(1) of the Panchayat Rules. We do not think that this contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is entitled to any weight.